Universal Access To All Knowledge
Home Donate | Store | Blog | FAQ | Jobs | Volunteer Positions | Contact | Bios | Forums | Projects | Terms, Privacy, & Copyright
Search: Advanced Search
Anonymous User (login or join us)
Upload

Reply to this post | Go Back
View Post [edit]

Poster: Administrator, Curator, or StaffDiana Hamilton Date: Apr 11, 2005 2:37am
Forum: etree Subject: Results from Deriver Evaluation

Here's a summary of the feedback we got about the idea of having supplemental lossy files alongside the archival lossless material here. After a year of testing, we held an evaluation period starting in February, see http://www.archive.org/iathreads/post-view.php?id=28774

We asked for reports of both positive and negative impacts- whether here in the archive, for bands, in people's lives, or in their communities (for example, trading communities). A wide variety of people responded: regular downloaders, uploaders, tapers, artists, staff and volunteers, even a reported non-user or two. There were ~50 active participants in the discussion.

We received many reports of significant positive impact. The main reasons for happiness with supplemental lossies were as follows:
-Ability to stream or preview to be exposed to unfamiliar bands (the most-reported reason by far!)
-Ability to stream or preview before a planned download in lossless form
-Ease of use (streaming at work, portability to car or portable listening device, familiarity of formats)
-Ease of access for low bandwidth (dialup) or limited storage capacity
-Increased exposure to the LMA in general, as a collection

The Archive itself does not appear to have been negatively affected. The level of submissions to the LMA has not decreased (data analyzed were outside periods of large special-project uploads). One proposed yardstick, membership at IA, was not useful since no membership is required for LMA participation, and many other non-LMA collections may influence membership.

We did not hear from many artists themselves within the discussion thread. However, over the last year through email, curators have received dozens of endorsements of the supplemental idea from various OK'd artists here.

Some folks still had misgivings about negative impact on principle, in the same vein as the misgivings when the idea was introduced a year ago. Yet despite a lot of calls for reports, no one was able to demonstrate actual negative impact on the archive or on their communities. An example of two tapers known to withhold their material from the LMA was shown not to be relevant, since they do so for philosophical reasons predating and beyond the deriver idea.

Still others (users, tapers and artists) reported that their misgivings about lossies had fallen away over the last year. The primary reasons for comfort appear to be that the deriver system remains optional, and that a lossless fileset remains accessible as the primary copy. Many people also reported satisfaction with the Archive's serving as a quality control point for lossies that do come into being: there is less worry about possibly inferior deriviations being made by others. Feelings all around were strong that the deriver system should remain optional in the same way that it is now (with accomodations for bands', tapers' or uploaders' wishes), and that lossless formats should continue to be available.

However, there were a number of suggestions for ways to improve the deriver system further. Among these:
-Better attention to deriver bugs and/or better communication about them when they occur
-Ogg streaming should be added
-FLAC streaming could be added?
-Label streams more clearly (as high vs. low-bandwidth choices)
-A few calls for streaming-only lossy, but not downloadable (staff reports this is not doable)
-Requirement for FLAC tagging before or after upload
-Add a categorization system for content (keywords for artists? "what's related?") so users won't have to rely as heavily on streaming for exposure

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: Administrator, Curator, or StaffDiana Hamilton Date: May 3, 2005 5:16am
Forum: etree Subject: Re: Results from Deriver Evaluation

One last bit of data (consider it indirect artist feedback) I got from doing something else: Current total through yesterday of artist sections requested to be "no MP3" is ~42 out of 989 sections, for ~4% band-specified lossless-only.

This post was modified by Diana Hamilton on 2005-05-03 12:16:32

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: raindog Date: Nov 29, 2005 4:17am
Forum: etree Subject: Re: Results from Deriver Evaluation

One more piece of feedback on the lossy files. Leaving them in the same folder as the lossless ones has got to unduly increase bandwidth requirements and download times for no good reason. I know this issue has been low priority, but I really can't understand why. I would think anything that could be done to sizeably reduce bandwidth requirements while increasing functionality would be a bit higher priority, especially when the solution appears so simple (creating the derivatives into a seperate folder).

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: Administrator, Curator, or StaffDiana Hamilton Date: Nov 29, 2005 4:33am
Forum: etree Subject: Re: Results from Deriver Evaluation

Sorry! That's supposed to be temporary,
http://www.archive.org/iathreads/post-view.php?id=39267
http://www.archive.org/iathreads/post-view.php?id=43727

This post was modified by Diana Hamilton on 2005-11-29 12:33:52

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: raindog Date: Nov 30, 2005 8:07am
Forum: etree Subject: Re: Results from Deriver Evaluation

I know it is. It's just been this way for some time, and it seems like something that could make a sizeable dent in your bandwidth like that would have a bit higher priority... Not really a big problem for me in the end, just trying to be helpful :)

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: twatts Date: Apr 12, 2005 8:09am
Forum: etree Subject: Re: Results from Deriver Evaluation

Death to the Non-Users!!! Oh wait, that's me...

Terry

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: Administrator, Curator, or StaffDiana Hamilton Date: Apr 12, 2005 9:27am
Forum: etree Subject: Re: Results from Deriver Evaluation

Try it, you'll like it Terry! Just hit d/l on a few random mp3s and check out some random bands, like we all do. :)

EDIT: Just saw your other post elsewhere- glad you did join in after all!

This post was modified by Diana Hamilton on 2005-04-12 16:27:32